HL Deb 05 November 1998 vol 594 cc399-420

(" . The Secretary of State shall by regulations—

  1. (a) provide for notice to be given to all registered parties of any application under section 2; and
  2. (b) authorise a party which is already registered to make objections to an application under section 2 on the ground that the name or emblem proposed in that application would be likely to result in the party making the application being confused by voters with the party objecting to the application.").

The noble Lord said: This is one of a number of amendments tabled by these Benches which reflect the widespread concern about the transparency of the registration process. Indeed, there are further subsequent amendments regarding appeal which reflect that concern. I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, had to say. As a renegade company lawyer, although I have admiration for provisions of the Companies Act, I certainly do not believe that we should be slavishly following them in this registration process, although it is convenient to use the Registrar of Companies for this purpose.

Under the Bill as drafted there is no provision for advertisement of the application for registration and there is no provision for representations or objections to be made. That may be perfectly acceptable in terms of registering a company's name, but I would suggest that the consequences of a political party failing to register a particular name are much more far-reaching than those applying to a company, which is perfectly able to change its name to something similar. Indeed, that is not ultimately damaging if the company is unable to get the precise form of words that it wants, but that may well be the case in terms of a political party in the political market-place.

Therefore, as I said, we do not need slavishly to follow the provisions of the Companies Act; indeed, we can use a different model if we wish to do so. I have in mind, for example, legislation on trade marks. I notice that the amendment drafted by the Opposition follows that perhaps rather more closely. Provision is certainly made in trade marks law for advertisement and for objections to be given. After all, if it is good enough for the trade marks law, why is it not good enough for our law on the registration of political parties?

I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that, in the early years of the exercise of the powers of the registrar under the Bill, it is particularly important that there should be the ability to make representations so that argument before the registrar can take place before those precedents are set in concrete. At present, there is neither the right of representation nor of appeal. That gives the registrar enormous discretion.

Finally, I turn now to the amendment tabled by the Opposition. Clearly the sentiment is the same, or very similar; and, of course, we would agree with such sentiments. However, Members of the Committee will see that the actual drafting of our amendment is designed to create rather more flexibility so that the actual mechanics of giving notice can be decided by regulation. It would allow rather more mature consideration to be given to the exact way in which that would operate. I beg to move.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Henley

Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I believe that we are now dealing with an important group of amendments, although our amendment attacks the problems from a slightly different angle from that put forward by the Liberal Democrat Party. As I understand it, Amendment No. 4 would only allow a right of objection to those parties which are already registered and the latter could only object on certain particular grounds. It seemed to us that it would be better if the right of objection was widened considerably. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 6 and why it is worded in the way set out on the Marshalled List. Under this amendment any party would be able to object to a registration, whether or not it is registered. That would mean that a party which had not yet registered would have a right to object to a registration if it thought that that registration might affect its future registration.

Similarly, a party which was already registered would have a right of objection. The amendment would also allow a right of objection to other people where, for one reason or another, they considered that they had some interest in objecting. We have also drafted our amendment in such a manner that it would be possible to object on any grounds that may be thought appropriate, rather than being limited as suggested by Amendment No. 4.

There is a possibility that the Minister will tell us that it will be possible for parties, whether registered or not, to make objections as they wish. In that case, we shall obviously not take these amendments any further. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is only right for parties to have some channel through which they can make their views known. I should be most grateful for an assurance from the noble Lord to that effect.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I believe I am getting into deeper and deeper waters here because every time an amendment has been debated today I have felt obliged—although I think that I must somehow be wrong—to oppose it and support the Government. In his wisdom, to which I have already paid tribute, I hope the noble Lord will see fit to reject both amendments, even though one of them, sadly, comes from my noble friend who sits on the Front Bench in front of me.

I have three points to make. First, I do not like giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations. I have great reservations as to the wisdom of Secretaries of State wherever they come from, however old they may be and whatever their sex. I just doubt the wisdom of Secretaries of State and I do not wish to lavish further powers upon them. Secondly, it seems to me that both amendments seek to protect the members of the club; in other words, to give them every opportunity to keep intruders out. As I have already said, I am not so much in favour of established political parties that I want to see this kind of thing done.

Thirdly, presumably the registrar will have his wits about him and will be someone with reasonable competence, not an idiot. Indeed, he has powers and duties under Clause 3 under which he is obliged to refuse registration if it, would be likely to result in the party's being confused by voters with a party which is already registered". What more protection could an established party want? It makes me very suspicious and upset if people want further to extend the Bill—in other words, to swell it out with words—when nothing will be achieved by it; or, alternatively, when something rather sinister will be achieved. I know not which is true.

Lord Borrie

Before my noble friend the Minister responds, perhaps I may pursue a disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. In particular, I believe that the amendment from the Opposition is intended, among other things, to enable parties which are neither established nor registered to have some say in whether a name should be registered.

I draw attention to the point made on Second Reading by a number of speakers; namely, there is the first stage application for registration and there is the second stage. There is what might be called the first mover advantage. That is, if a party is entitled to register at the first stage—this applies only to parties which have at least one Member of Parliament—it gets in at the first stage and it obtains a certain advantage. If, however, a party does not have a single Member of Parliament, it has to wait a certain period. When someone wants to be registered as a party under the first stage—this applies only to a limited number of existing parties—that application should be notified to, and objected to, by others, for example, others who have an intention of registering under the second stage and who may have a similar name. That would give the proposition of the Opposition Front Bench some merit. If I may be so bold as to arbitrate between the two Front Benches. I prefer the Conservative proposal to that of the Liberal Democrats.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I am sorry if anything I said was responsible for stirring the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to get to his feet. However, my grief and sadness at not being able to agree with my own Front Bench is much more severe than that caused by my inability to agree with him.

Viscount Bledisloe

I suggest that if there is to be a right of objection it cannot be reserved only to registered parties. What about someone who is trying in some way to pretend to be independent and who sought to register the Cross-Bench party? Surely those who are Cross-Benchers must be entitled to object even though they are not a party and therefore obviously would not be registered. There must be a right for the public to object if there is to be a right to object at all.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, because on Second Reading I said that we had to be particularly careful in considering a Bill which may on the face of it appear to be "carving things up" between the major parties. That remark was not received in the Chamber with universal approbation. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is the first person I have heard make the same point. I believe we need to be careful with this matter. What concerns me with regard to Amendment No. 6 of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is mention of, such national newspapers as appear to him"— that is, the registrar— to be appropriate". I have in this Chamber previously drawn attention to the way in which the "chattering classes" have thrashed through their constitutional change programme. The national newspapers they have used have been restricted to the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, and one insertion in a tabloid newspaper—Today. However, nothing else has been used. A phrase such as the one I have mentioned is far too sloppy. If the registrar is to be given some kind of control over which national newspapers may be used to advertise in, the provision must be much more specific to ensure that it is not simply a case of special pleading appealing to a particular audience.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

As is so often the case, the propositions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, seem to me unarguable. In other words, one could not sensibly dispute them. Had I been irresolute, he would have stiffened my resolve. He said—I think this is the heart of the matter—that if one is to appoint a person to do this work, one will assume that he or she will have his or her wits about him. That is precisely the case. I shall develop that theme in a limited way.

Amendment No. 4 limits the right of objection—I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—to registered parties. That is a point of concern to both the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Cocks. Amendment No. 6 puts that in a wider context. Clause 3(1)(a) already requires the registrar, when considering applications, to take account of whether the proposed name is, likely to result in the party's being confused by voters with a party which is already registered". During the transitional stages, Clause 18(1)(b) provides an additional test of considering the historic use of a name when deciding whether an application for registration should be granted. If one wants the belt, the braces and the corset, Clause 10 gives the registrar the opportunity to take advice from the Speaker's committee. It is difficult to understand why anything further should sensibly be wanted bearing in mind that we need a scheme to be operative by May of next year, which is not far away. We do not want significant delays. The scheme gives the registrar the authority and the discretion to come to sensible judgments which are not difficult for a person charged with those responsibilities.

Lord Henley

I take it therefore that there is no objection—the noble Lord did not touch on this—to individuals, whether they be Cross-Benchers or parties, making objections to the registrar. The registrar would obviously take note of those objections if they were made.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I think the registrar would be derelict if he did not take them into account.

Lord Clement-Jones

I think the Minister will forgive me for saying that we on these Benches are rather disappointed with his response. He displays an ultimate faith in the registrar who will have a difficult job to discharge in a political minefield, especially if he is not to have the benefit of hearing people argue their case. There is the issue of political parties being given notice of the applications for registration. There is also the important issue of their being able to argue their case before the registrar.

I accept to some degree the criticisms that have been made about the Liberal Democrat amendment. Clearly I do not wish to create a closed shop—albeit I am a lawyer—which prevents representations being made by those other than existing registered political parties. The system should be more open than that. However, we defend the making of regulations to allow more considered regulations to be made rather than bringing forward a scheme involving a 28-day notice period. As I said, we are disappointed at the Minister's response to the sentiments behind this amendment. We shall withdraw it at this stage and reconsider it for Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [Grant of applications]:

Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("script") to end of line 11.

The noble Lord said: The Minister will undoubtedly have heard the old adage that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Bearing in mind how helpful I have been to the Government with regard to the previous amendments I believe the moment has come for a tiny pay-off. I would find that gratifying although there is a great limit to my ambitions in that context.

I know it is original to consider the Bill, but I invite the Committee to have a brief look at Clause 3. Clause 3(1) states, The registrar shall grant an application by a party under section 2 unless in his opinion it proposes a registered name which—

  1. (a) would be likely to result in the party's being confused …
  2. (b) comprises more than six words
  3. (c) is obscene or offensive
  4. (d) includes words the publication of which would be likely to amount to the commission of an offence".
I know that there is little limit to the noble Lord's intellectual powers. He can perhaps help me on this matter. I have omitted the provision about the application needing to be written in Roman script. There follows a kind of "sweep-up" provision: (f) includes any word or expression prohibited by order made by the Secretary of State". By including that kind of verbiage in the Bill, do the Government have anything in mind? Or are they merely having a general sweep-up? Did they say, "We are getting awfully tired of this exercise. Let's include a general, safety-net clause that will catch everything that the Secretary of State finds in the least distasteful"?

In relation to the previous amendment, which he sensibly rejected, the noble Lord said that a "belt and braces" provision was unnecessary. Clause 3(1)(f) is a further example of belt and braces and the Government saying, "In case we have left anything out, let us include some words that will cover more or less whatever we do."

I hope that the noble Lord will give serious thought to this matter and give me a tiny pay-back, which I believe I have fully earned for my very helpful conduct so far.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Henley

I do not know whether my noble friend wants support from this Bench, or whether he thinks it might upset the "pay-back" to which he believes he is entitled, the "free lunch" to which he referred earlier. However, I can offer him some slight support for his amendment. It may be useful if I refer the Committee to the 29th Report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which made only one recommendation in regard to this Bill; namely, it invited the House to consider the degree of parliamentary control that should be provided for the power being granted to the Secretary of State by Clause 3(1)(f).

A better way of dealing with the matter, as my noble friend proposes in his amendment, may be to remove the power from the Secretary of State absolutely. That seems to be what my noble friend generally likes to do, operating on the basis that powers should be taken away from Secretaries of State rather than granted to them. But if we are not to remove that power, it is right that the Committee should consider exactly what control we should have over this particular clause. I understand that at present it is subject to the negative resolution procedure. I should be grateful for confirmation from the noble Lord that that is correct and that it appears in the Bill.

At this stage I simply give notice that we shall probably wish to return to this matter at a later stage so that the House can give proper consideration to whether the provision should be under the negative or affirmative resolution procedure.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I am sure that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, say that he had been co-operative. There was then a considered pause before he introduced those two words which sent a shiver down my back—"so far".

The noble Lord asked for examples. It is not a matter of over-nannying. We have in mind names containing a word such as "royal". That would be inappropriate and ought to be forbidden. Words in the same context are "duke", "duchess", "Her Majesty", "His Majesty", "king", "prince", "princess", "queen" and "royalty". Those are the kinds of expression that we should wish not to see used. I mentioned other examples earlier. We do not want people to be able to register and simply use the word "independent" in order to prevent anyone else using a similar word. But questions relating to the Royal Family ought to be subject to the prohibition that is anticipated.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is right. Clause 3(1)(f) is subject to the negative resolution procedure by virtue of Clause 20(2). I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, with my persuasive explanation.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I am sorry to say that the noble Lord has done nothing of the kind. I am deeply disappointed. On the other hand I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I recognise that on this occasion I have done nothing to deserve his support, and I am therefore the more grateful for his gallantry in giving it. He has a generous spirit, as we all know and I wish to acknowledge that.

The Minister's reply is disappointing. If particular words must be avoided, the statute should say so. Why on earth should we endow the Secretary of State with these extra powers? I find this sort of thing vaguely inconvenient. It is distasteful to me; I do not like it. I do not care to give Secretaries of State that kind of power. I should have said as much with the same firmness had the provision related to a Secretary of State in the previous administration.

However, in view of the noble Lord's remarks I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage. I have tabled other amendments which I contemplate not moving for the present. I shall leave them until a later stage so that I can examine the Minister's remarks in the Official Report to see whether there is any chance of a little "give". So far, the noble Lord has taken everything that I have offered and given me nothing in return. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 13, at end insert—

("( ) The registrar shall refuse an application by a party under section 2 if he believes, irrespective of the party's proposed registered name, that the party is substantially the same as a registered party, having regard to the applicant party's objectives, membership, officers or geographical base.").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that this amendment addresses a problem that I have raised in relation to both the Welsh and Scottish Bills. Although I detect a few Members of the Committee present today who have not been present for the Welsh and Scottish legislation, I know that the Minister has been present, and for his sake if not my own. I shall truncate the problem and come to the solution.

The problem relates to a suggestion made by a lecturer from Aberdeen University, taken up by a Labour MP in the city of Glasgow. I shall give the example that was provided, so I am not picking on the governing party. It is this. In Glasgow the Labour Party, at least to date, has dominated the first-past-the-post elections. When it comes to the top-up seats in the Scottish parliament—this discussion could also relate to most of the Welsh seats—the Labour Party will not gain many because of its dominant share of first-past-the-post seats. The idea was advanced that instead of the Labour Party standing in the second ballot, it would allow the Co-operative Party to stand in Scotland, and, I suspect, in Wales. The public are well aware that the words "Labour" and "Co-operative" go together rather like "gin and tonic" or whatever else your Lordships may care to think about; therefore it would not be difficult for the public to understand what the Labour Party was up to. If that were to happen, and Labour voters were to vote Co-operative in the second ballot and the Labour Party did not stand at all, then, because the Co-operative Party would have no seats on first-past-the-post, it would gain a generous harvest of top-up seats. Therefore, when members of the party appeared at Holyrood or in Cardiff following the election, their numbers would be much higher than if the Co-operative Party had not stood in the second ballot but the Labour Party had. That is essentially the problem.

I have not made this up from my own fevered imagination, as is sometimes said of one or two amendments I propose. The problem was put forward seriously and was discussed in another place. The Glasgow Labour MP made no pretence that it was not an idea he thought well worth considering. In fairness it has to be said that in this House—I am not sure about the other place—the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and myself gave assurances that we would never play a game like that. However, I pointed out to the Labour Benches that that did not bind the Scottish National Party were it ever to be in a position where it might be a good trick or wheeze for it to play. I believe that this is potentially a way in which parties could abuse the electoral system. I came forward with a number of suggestions on both the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, none of which met with the Government's approval. Indeed, I do not believe that they met with the approval of the Liberal Democrat Party. However, it was indicated to me—certainly from the Liberal Democrat Benches—that this was the correct Bill on which to seek a way to deal with the problem, and Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 attempt to do that.

Amendment No. 7 provides that, if the registrar of political parties has grounds to believe that a party which applies for registration is to all intents and purposes the same party as one already on the register and is clearly registering in order to take advantage of the top-up system in the way I have outlined, he would be able to refuse registration.

Amendment No. 15 provides that, if the registrar had granted an application for registration to a party which it transpired was to all intents and purposes the same party as one standing in first-past-the-post, he would be able to withdraw the registration.

I believe that the amendments are reasonably well drafted. I did not draft them myself; that was done by someone who knows about these things. I believe that they tackle the problem. I know from our discussions on the Government of Wales Bill that the Minister does not think that the problem is likely to occur. However, it has been discussed. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who shared the workplace of Aberdeen University with the gentleman who raised the matter that he is reputable. His suggestion was given fairly wide coverage in Scotland, as was the backing it received from the Labour MP. It is not a totally ridiculous position to theorise over. It could happen and certainly would bring considerable rewards in some circumstances. Although the Labour Party has clearly said—and I believe it—that it would not do so, the attraction of stopping the Scottish nationalists obtaining a lot of top-up seats and creating difficulty for the Scottish parliament will certainly exist for the Labour Party. Indeed those of us who do not want to see the Scottish Nationalist Party obtain enough seats in the Scottish parliament to upset the Union might be tempted to think that it was a good wheeze. However, I do not think it is a good wheeze; it would be wrong and an abuse of the system.

I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at these two amendments, which seek to deal with the problem. When the matter was raised on the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, it was accepted that it could be a problem although the Minister did not think that it would arise. However, noble Lords indicated that this was the Bill in which the matter should be dealt with. I therefore propose these amendments to deal with what I fear could, one day in the future, be a serious abuse of the two-vote top-up system to be used in Scotland and Wales. I beg to move.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

Having listened to the noble Lord who moved the amendment, I am coming more and more to the conclusion that the Bill is an absolute mess. When giving examples of words which would not be used, my noble friend on the Front Bench produced a string of words about the Monarchy. That is not what I would have thought of. I would have thought of a group of people filled with malice, deliberately setting out to mess up the system. Even earlier my noble friend said that there were several important groups of elections coming up and we could therefore see how the system works. What a basis on which to go forward!

I believe that the amendment indicates further problems ahead. When discussing the Bill we have assumed that people will be filled with good will. When those who are filled with malice, who do not like this country, its open system and democratic traditions, get to work, I believe that the Bill could become a vehicle by which they could do serious damage to the way we proceed.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Goodhart

I have a good deal of sympathy for the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It seems to me that, at least in theory, there is a problem, and it is not difficult to see what that problem is. I have some concern about the drafting of the amendments. I do not believe that they block all the ways in which the problem could arise. For instance, looking back at the history of my own party, it would have been possible for the SDP and the Liberal Party to have one party fighting all the first-past-the-post seats and another putting up all the candidates for the list. I am sure that we would not have done that, but it would have been a possibility. It would not have been met by this amendment because the two parties had different memberships, different offices and not wholly identical objectives. That is not the only example where that kind of problem could have arisen. It could also have arisen 50 or 60 years ago with the Conservative Party and the National Liberal Party, which were, at least for a period, separate parties.

The problem arises only in connection with AMS elections, but it nevertheless needs to be considered. While I cannot support the amendments, for the reasons I have given, I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to give the matter further consideration and see whether some alternative can be devised.

Viscount Bledisloe

Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has explained this problem, he has convinced me that it is a real problem and not merely theoretical. It is unacceptable to wave it away on the basis that the parties have said that they will not behave in that way. First, that has only been said by the three principal parties represented in this House. Secondly, undertakings of that kind tend to be forgotten over the years, especially when the prize to be gained is substantial. Thirdly, it is surely fundamentally unacceptable to enact legislation on the basis that it contains a defect but that we can trust people not to cheat. That is not what legislation is for.

On the other hand, in the case of the other Bills I considered the solutions propounded by the noble Lord to be worse than the ills he was seeking to cure. I believe that the amendments he is now proposing, in particular Amendment No. 15, are very apt to cure the ill he is worried about and will have no side effects. It may be that the drafting is not perfect, but I hope that the Minister will accept the principle behind the amendments and that he will discuss the matter with noble Lords on the other Front Benches and agree, by the next stage of the Bill, an amendment to achieve this end.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I believe that the problem is largely theoretical. To take the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Bill is not intended to prevent two distinct parties with similar aims and objectives from registering. If two distinct registered parties with similar aims wish to enter into an electoral pact to try to maximise their support, as they may well do, we think they should be entitled to do so.

It is the abusive manipulation of the additional member system which has troubled Members of the Committee. One must remember that to obtain such an unfair advantage a party must first win a significant number of constituency seats within a region and its alter ego party must receive a significant proportion of the regional vote for the additional member seats. I reaffirmed the undertaking given by the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru gave the same undertaking, and it is my understanding that the Scottish Nationalist Party has said that it will not seek to deceive the voters in this way.

Voters are not simple-minded. They are perfectly able to know when deceit is being practised on them. In the elections we are speaking of, the media would be alert to any mendacity or deception. I believe that the Bill and the powers given to the registrar are sufficient. One could not obtain an unfair advantage by manipulation outside the context of those parties which have already promised never to do that.

There are difficulties with the amendments in any event. It is difficult to understand how a registrar will have access to the objectives, membership, officers and geographical bases before he comes to his conclusion. It would be a very difficult duty for the registrar to discharge. But that is not my fundamental objection. My objection is, to use the words of the noble Viscount, that this is a theoretical mischief, which is not a real one.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for their support. While I accept that it is theoretical, as I explained it was being seriously discussed inside some parts of the Labour Party in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, it would be very beneficial in those parts of the country where a political party gained all the first-past-the-post seats in a region and yet did not gain well over 50 per cent. of the vote. Even if they did gain over 50 per cent., it would still be beneficial. Regrettably, there are many regions in Scotland where the Labour Party did win all the first-past-the-post seats, and the same is true in Wales. The noble Lord heard me give examples of how it could be done in Wales.

I accept that, apart from the discussions I mentioned earlier, nobody has suggested that they would do it. The political parties have said that they would not do it. But, just to raise the concerns of the Liberal Democrat Party, there would be a temptation above all temptations for it to do it in the Highland region. It received a lot of the first-past-the-post seats in the Highland region on a minority of the vote. On the basis of the last election results, it would have no chance of getting any of the top-up seats in the Scottish parliament. It is very decent of the Liberal Democrat Party to assure us that it would never be tempted into this.

Clearly, I am not making any progress with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The assurances I have received are certainly welcome but, as these are not matters which would be resolved in a court, I do not believe that the usual Government or other party assurances would be a protection against a party in the future using this method of abusing the additional member system. I will read the objections which have been made to the drafting and see if we can improve it. I will come back at the next stage and perhaps at that time I shall persuade the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with a tightly drafted amendment that meets with no objection, that it would be worth putting a few more words into this Bill. That would ensure for all time in the future that the additional member system is made foolproof against any political party deciding to abuse it by the type of operation that I have described. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Entries in the register]:

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 2, line 15, leave out ("home").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 9 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 30, 32 and 36. This is a very simple probing amendment which can be dealt with very quickly in the form of a question. As the noble Lord has seen, we seek to remove the word "home" from "home addresses". We appreciate that the Bill has been drafted in such a manner so that people's personal security can be protected. Their home addresses are not made public and they are not put at risk, should there be a risk. We welcome that.

But there might be cases—and I am thinking particularly of Northern Ireland—where the party headquarters might be seen to be a target of terrorists. It might be that on some occasions a party will have a legitimate desire to keep its headquarters' address secret—odd though that might sound for a party engaged in the business of trying to attract publicity and support. Can the noble Lord assure us that, where there were legitimate concerns of that sort, it would be possible to have such details left off the public register? I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

This is a legitimate concern. I am happy to reaffirm that the privacy of the leader, the nominating officer and the families is preserved by Clause 4. Clause 4 prohibits the inclusion of home addresses on the register, which will be a document in the public domain. It is a perfectly legitimate concern to have raised.

There is nothing sinister about this. We simply need home addresses, for instance, if there is a circumstance where a party splits or divides. Then it may be necessary for the registrar to be able to contact a person at his or her home address to make sure of the true factual position. Clause 4 gives the protection which may be needed in the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord.

Lord Henley

I obviously did not make my question clear. There might be occasions where the party might want to keep its address out of the public domain. Obviously, once it is in the register it would be in the public domain. Would the address of the party have to be part of the register and therefore in the public domain?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I cannot think of any circumstances in which a party could possibly stand for election without having its address known. One has the usual details to be included on election material, for example, which is disseminated. I cannot think of any party that could possibly exist without its registered office being known. In Northern Ireland—which, after all, in some ways is a limited community in terms of the electorate—everybody knows where Sinn Fein's office is. I know perfectly well where the SDLP office is. Even the Flat Earth Society has an office. One has to be sensible. One has to have proper protection of privacy. That is why we have put it in Clause 4. Other than that, I think the noble Lord's concerns are overdone.

Lord Henley

I accept that it would be fairly difficult to imagine circumstances where a party did wish to keep such matters confidential. All I sought was an assurance that such matters could be kept secret should it be necessary. Obviously the noble Lord thinks that that is not the case. I will ponder over his words very carefully and for the moment withdraw my amendments. I suspect I shall not come back to them. I shall give the noble Lord that assurance at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Emblems]:

[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Henley

My noble friend and I gave notice that we would oppose the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Grouped with the debate on Clause 5 stand part are Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 24, 34 and 42. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil is no longer in his place but I know that he likes brevity in a Bill. Should I press these amendments, and should they be agreed to, it would mean the deletion of some 46 lines in total from the Bill, which would reduce it by at least one page. I suspect that that would have some support from my noble friend.

I brought forward these amendments only because there were one or two concerns about the use of logos and a regret that they should be used on ballot papers. I am thinking particularly of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Freeman at Second Reading. As we all know, it is only relatively recently in electoral terms that we even included the names of political parties on ballot papers. Before that, one of the duties of those canvassing was to make sure that people would recognise the name of their party candidate. Changes were then made and the names of parties were included. That is one of the points which the Bill addresses. I rather regret that we have to extend this to include logos on the ballot paper and therefore have to have some system of registering logos.

We heard in response to Amendment No. 10 that it will not be possible to register separate logos for different parts of the same party. I am thinking of the separate logos that the Scottish Liberal Democrats and their English counterpart might have. Similarly, as I understand it, it will not be possible for my colleagues in Scotland to register their distinctive logo—my noble friend Lord Mackay assures me that they have a distinctive logo—rather than the logo of the English party. It seems to me that if we are to have the registration of logos, it would be preferable for them to be registered in separate manners, as was suggested originally in Amendment No. 10.

Those are the only points I want to make on the Question whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Peyton would or would not have supported a move to remove 46 lines from the Bill. However, I live in hope that on some later occasion he might come back and offer support.

6 p.m.

Lord Goodhart

My reaction is: why not have logos? I do not know whether the Conservatives are perhaps upset by the rather smoky looking torch that appears in the appendix to the Bill, but there are plainly two advantages to logos. The first is that they reinforce the protection for party names given by the Bill by making it doubly obvious which party people are voting for. The second advantage relates to the fact that not everyone is capable of reading English. In countries such as India, where there are large numbers of illiterate people, the existence of a logo is essential to voters. In this country those who are functionally illiterate may be dissuaded from voting because they might find considerable difficulty identifying on a written ballot paper the candidate they wished to support. There are also people who are literate but not literate in the English language. They may be literate in one of the Indian scripts but not in an English script. In that case, once again, the existence of a logo would very much help them to vote. While we have had a good deal of sympathy for the other amendments put forward by the Conservative Party, we have to take an entirely different line on this occasion.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

The important point to bear in mind is that Clause 5 is purely permissive. I take up the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to the draft counterfoil on page 10 of the Bill. One sees there that of the six candidates five have logos and Catherine Angelina Smith, Independent, has none. One needs to bear in mind that the clause is purely permissive. It states: A party's application under section 2 may include a request for the registration of an emblem". We want to encourage people to participate in the electoral process. That is good in a healthy democracy. If people who are unfamiliar with the English language, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated—there are also those who are partially sighted, those who have reading difficulties and those who have difficulty in distinguishing names—can be encouraged to come forward, then so much the better.

The logo also deals with the difficulty where a candidate assumes the same name as another candidate. The logo is a means of differentiation. Quite often—this is certainly the case in Wales—there might be five legitimate candidates who all have the same name—possibly a common one like Williams. The emblem is simply a device, no more—it is not obligatory—to make the electoral process easier, simpler and more attractive. That should be an advantage not a disadvantage.

As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, there was a time when party names were not included and the "Where will it all end?" and "The end of civilisation as we know it" arguments were put forward. But I know of no one who is seriously interested in electoral matters who does not think that that was a positive advance.

Lord Henley

Can the noble Lord deal with the point I made about Scotland? Can he confirm that it will not be possible for different constituent parts of the same party to register different emblems?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I thought I had given that answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when I referred to the two square centimetres.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Changes to the register]:

{Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.}

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Removal of entries from the register]:

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 3, line 34, at end insert—

("( ) The registrar may remove a party's entry from the register if any of the party's registered officers have been convicted of an offence under section 19(1) in connection with the party's registration or continued registration.").

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which is self-explanatory in its wording. As the noble Lord will see, it seeks to give the registrar a power to remove an entry from the register if any of the party's registered officers have been convicted of an offence under Clause 19, which, the Committee will remember, deals with false statements. It seems fairly obvious to us that there should be such a power. I should be grateful for a response from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I beg to move.

Lord Clement-Jones

On these Benches we believe that this is a somewhat draconian power for the registrar to have. I have been a party officer for some years now. If we had someone in my party who was convicted in such circumstances, we should certainly make sure that his feet did not touch the ground and that he did not darken the doors of our party headquarters after that. For the registrar to have a power to disqualify the party as a whole from registering because of the misdemeanours of one officer is extraordinarily draconian. What the amendment seems to imply is that parties themselves have connived at the misdemeanour of the party officer who has been convicted and, therefore, that the party should pay the penalty. I recognise that the amendment says "may" and not "shall". Nevertheless, having something on the statute book of this strength seems to us to be extremely dangerous, and we cannot support it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment but I do not think it is necessary. If false information were provided of such seriousness as to merit prosecution, the party probably would not have provided the information required to enable registration, so the entry would be void. In any event, looking at the practicalities, if a party were removed, it could immediately apply for registration under another name or simply wait three months and register under the same name. I do not think there is any practical utility here, although I repeat that I sympathise with the intention of the amendment.

Lord Henley

I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, implied, that the Liberal Democrat Party is as pure as the driven snow and I am sure that the same applies to my party and all other parties. However, it is possible—I think we should remember the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks—that not all parties in the future will behave in such a manner. It is possible that some may not have the same devotion to democracy and openness as others. It may be right to consider the inclusion of a power of this kind. I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said and possibly return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 3, line 38, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 is purely a probing amendment related to the transitional period. One asks why it should be three months as opposed to any other period. I suggested six months almost as a result of drawing a number out of a hat. The amendment is tabled purely to ask the Government why they consider three months an appropriate period for the transitional stage, and whether they considered other periods and, if so, why.

Lord Clement-Jones

I cannot see the purpose of the amendment. In the end there is still a six-month transitional period. The provision specifies a transitional period of three months plus a further three months, which accords with reality, rather than a block of six months after which one falls off the edge of a cliff, so to speak. We do not support the amendment.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

The short answer is that the Government thought three months a practical length of time and quite long enough to establish a proper distance. In seeking to achieve a workable electoral system we saw no compelling reason to provide a longer period.

Lord Henley

I am most grateful for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

6.15 p.m.

Clause 9 [Applications under section 6 or 8]:

On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Brightman

I raise one small point on Clause 9. My query is whether the clause requires further scrutiny. The declared intention of the Bill in both its Short Title and Long Title is to make provision for the registration of political parties. However, it seems clear that the Bill applies also to a person who desires to stand as an independent candidate and has no organisation or party of any description behind him. That is clear beyond peradventure by virtue of Clause 22 (the interpretation clause) in which "party" includes "any person".

If one reads Clause 9 as applying not only to a party but to a person, the wording appears a little odd: Subject to subsection (3), an application by a person under section 6 or 8 must be signed by his or her responsible officers.

(2) For the purposes of this section 'the responsible officers' are—

  1. (a) The registered leader;
  2. (b) the registered nominating officer;
  3. (c) where the leader and the nominating officer are the same person, the other registered officer.

(3) If any responsible officer is unable to sign an application— (a) the holder of some other office in the party"—

I cannot insert "person" there— may sign in his place, and (b) the application must include", etcetera, etcetera.

Without some change that wording does not appear to me entirely happy and consistent with the inclusion of an independent person with no party or organisation behind him. Reading, as I have, Clause 9 substituting "person" for "party", I find myself in a bit of a muddle. Can the Minister, having confirmed that the Bill is intended to apply to an independent candidate with no party or organisation behind him, inform the Committee whether he is satisfied with the present wording or whether it should be referred back to parliamentary counsel for reconsideration?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his courtesy in giving me notice that he would raise this matter. I have therefore been able to take advice upon it. I confirm that someone with no party organisation can register as the leader and nominating officer of a party. Having done that he needs to name another person—only one—as holding a specific office. That is to be found in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1: If one person is named in an application both as leader and as nominating officer, the application must also give the name and home address of the holder of some other specified office in the party". That does not prevent anyone from standing as an independent provided he can get one other person to act as his supporter. We do not believe that that is unduly onerous. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising the matter. My advice is that, having listened to his question and his understanding of Clause 9 as read with the other clause he identified, it is properly drafted and does not place any undue difficulty in the path of anyone who wants to stand as an independent.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Speaker's committee]:

Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 4, line 12, at end insert—

("(2) A party whose application under section 3, 5, 6 or 18 is refused may appeal to the committee against the decision of the registrar.

(3) A registered party may appeal to the committee against a decision of the registrar under section 3, 5 or 6 in respect of another party.").

The noble Lord said: I return to the question of the transparency of the process involved in registration and appeal against it. Many of the same principles debated earlier apply here since we have doubts about the width of the discretion that is available to the registrar. Given that currently there is discretion purely in the hands of the registrar as to whether to refer a particular matter to the Speaker's committee, in those circumstances only judicial review is available to an aggrieved would-be registrant. One is aware that judicial review may involve some extremely eminent lawyers but it is a very blunt instrument particularly in cases such as this where effectively political judgments need to be made. Obviously, it will not be the full appeal process on the merits of a particular case.

It is important to have an appeal that is presided over by people with some political understanding of the process. For that reason we believe that the choice of the Speaker's committee is appropriate. Obviously, it is left to the Speaker's discretion as to who should be appointed to that task. But we believe that that body would be appropriate to carry out the task. For that reason we prefer the choice of the Speaker's committee pure and simple rather than the registration appeals committee referred to in the Conservative Party's amendment which specifically provides that a majority shall not be members of any political party.

This may well be a political process and perhaps fine political judgments will have to be made by the Speaker's committee. We believe that an appeal process is necessary. It would be a quick and effective process, the right people would be involved, and there would be the minimum of legal argument. I beg to move.

Lord Henley

Our amendment is grouped with this amendment and it attacks the problem from a slightly different angle. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, does not like our amendment. I believe that it is somewhat superior, but then, "I would, wouldn't I?". Furthermore, I suspect that my noble friend Lord Peyton would not welcome our amendment in that it seems to offer yet greater powers to the Secretary of State to establish a committee. My noble friend is not keen on offering any further powers to the Secretary of State. So be it; I shall have to live without his support.

If Members of the Committee cast their mind back to Second Reading they will remember that almost every speaker commented on the desirability of having some kind of appeals process built into the Bill. From that point of view, I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It may be that we shall have to return to the matter at a later stage. Perhaps on that occasion the Liberal Democrats will allow me to add my name to their amendment. I appreciate that on most occasions they want to exclude me; indeed, it was only by quick footwork that I was able to attach my name to one of their amendments today. However, I live in hope that occasionally we might work together. I believe that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, spoke of the desirability of an appeals process. We might come together and table an all-party amendment which the Minister will have to address with even greater weight than is required for an amendment tabled by myself and my noble friend Lord Mackay.

Our amendment empowers the Secretary of State to set up a committee which, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made clear, will not be dominated by party political people. This is one of those occasions when I suspect that it would be better to keep party politics out of the process. I understood the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in favour of involving politicians, but we can discuss that further at a later stage. For the moment, I would welcome the Minister's view and I shall listen carefully to what he has to say. I give an assurance that I and others will wish to return to the matter at a later stage.

Lord Borrie

Without wishing to prolong the matter, and before hearing what must be an important and interesting statement by the Minister, I wish to explain that the reason why on Second Reading a number of us felt that some kind of appeal process was necessary was because, among other things, the registrar, without any initial experience and appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry rather than by the Home Office, and with experience of a world which is different from that of political parties, was being given enormous power, the results of which would last for a considerable period of time. To a large degree, it would be a one-off series of decisions by the registrar taken during a fairly short period. It would be unsatisfactory if those decisions were unappealable.

Earlier today, I said that I preferred the Conservative rather than the Liberal Democrat amendment. On this occasion, I dislike less the Conservative amendment. I do not believe that either is satisfactory. The Liberal Democrat amendment is not satisfactory because it gives a tremendous degree of power to an appeal committee which, unless Mr. Martin Bell is a member, will comprise only party politicians, all of whom, in different ways, will have an interest in the application for the registration of political parties.

There is somewhat more appeal—I did not mean to make a pun—in the Conservative amendment. However, if the appointment is by the Speaker and no guidance is given, it will presumably be made up at least in part of party politicians who are Members of the House of Commons. Who the other members will be is unstated. I believe that further thought should be given to the matter. I do not wish to support either amendment at this stage, but I, too, will be fascinated to hear the Minister's response on the principle of an appeal.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I understand the basis behind the arguments put forward by your Lordships. I believe that the framework we have set out in the Bill provides sufficient safeguards. I suggest that it is important to bear in mind that Clause 10 specifically provides that before the registrar decides any question arising under Sections 3, 5, 6 or 18—they are the relevant sections spoken to in the amendments—he may seek advice from a committee of Members of the House of Commons appointed by the Speaker for the purpose.

Amendment No. 18 provides for a right of appeal to the Speaker's committee. But we are getting rather circuitous because, bearing in mind Clause 12, in any difficult or contentious case the registrar is likely to refer the application for advice to the Speaker's committee. One would expect in those circumstances that the registrar would act on the advice. Therefore, there would be no point in having an appeal to the Speaker's Committee because it would be reviewing its own decisions.

Amendment No. 19 offers an alternative appeal mechanism to the registration appeals committee. The new clause is a shade short on detail. It makes no provision for parliamentary control. We were looking for a framework which would be fair, straightforward and simple to operate. There is the remedy of judicial review. If the registrar misapplies the law, misdirects himself or herself, or acts unreasonably, the remedy already exists; namely, judicial review. We believe that we have got the balance about right and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Henley

The noble Lord is saying that the only remedy shall be judicial review. He will accept that judicial review would be both expensive and time consuming. There will be occasions when, whatever appeal is made, it must be dealt with speedily. Will he not reconsider the whole matter and at least agree to discussions about whether it might be possible to include some formal appeals procedure by whatever means so that such matters can be dealt with without the expense of going to the courts and without the time consuming nature of doing so?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

That is what we have provided. We have provided an informal mechanism, to use the noble Lord's phrase, because it specifically allows that the registrar may take advice by virtue of Clause 10. We have struck exactly the balance of efficiency, speed, lack of expense and informality. It is said that the courts are very slow but, without commenting on the merits of the issue, the Lord Chief Justice heard Senator Pinochet's original application very quickly and the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House is hearing it at the moment. One could not be quicker than that. The informality and advice is well provided for in Clause 10.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked for informal talks? Would that not be a good idea? The Minister did not respond to the request. I believe that the measure is largely agreed and that it would be sensible if the Minister were able to agree to such discussions.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I may have misunderstood what the noble Lord was saying because I took his reference to "informal advice" to be in relation to the provision in Clause 10.

I am always willing to listen but I am sure that noble Lords will bear in mind the timetable of this Bill and the very tight schedule to which we are working bearing in mind that the first elections are as early as May of next year. I cannot say more than that I shall listen. I should not like to give a hint that we shall change our minds. However, as always, I shall listen to anything which noble Lords wish to say.

Lord Henley

I am extremely grateful for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It may be useful for members of my party and members of the noble Lord's party to have some informal discussions. From the Minister's answers, I suspect that he is not prepared to move on this matter. It is an issue on which virtually every noble Lord expressed concerns at Second Reading. That includes noble Lords sitting behind the Minister as well as those sitting opposite. It was thought that there should be an appeals procedure.

The noble Lord referred to Clause 10 and said that the registrar may seek advice on any question arising under Clauses 3, 5, 6 or 18 from the commission appointed by the Speaker of another place. That really does not go far enough. That is merely offering advice to the registrar. It does not provide an appeals process, whether informal or otherwise, to other people who may be affected. It simply offers the provision of advice to the registrar.

I do not know what line the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to take about his amendment but it is certainly a matter to which I shall wish to return at a later stage.

Lord Clement-Jones

Certainly we feel strongly about this principle. We are not wedded to the precise form of words of the amendment. I was going to say that there was no chink of daylight shown by the Minister but there may have been a smidgen of a hint in terms of being prepared at least to listen, if not to agree.

I can give some encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and tell him that this is a matter about which we feel extremely strongly. We may be able to bring forward a cross-party amendment on Report which may attract the support of some Labour Back-Benchers. The matter has been understood but not enough sympathy has been shown to the principle. At the end of the day, we believe that problems may arise unless there is a proper appeals mechanism. We shall withdraw the amendment at this stage but reserve our right to return to the matter on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.

Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 21:

After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—